p We now know that every backward country can at first, until the home market is glutted, eliminate "insuperable competition" from its more advanced neighbours by means of a customs system. Mr. Tikhomirov’s arguments that in our country there are hardly any markets thus lose a considerable portion of their specific weight. For backward countries the question can be formulated only as follows: will Western capitalism succeed—and to what extent—to draw them into its wake before it gives place to a higher form of social organisation? To answer this question we must weigh attentively the present situation of each of those countries separately. That we will do in the next chapter; let us now return to Mr. Tikhomirov and see how he makes this analysis.

p Anybody who has followed social trends in our country in recent years knows, of course, that the efforts of our "private businessmen" are directed precisely towards guaranteeing the home market. This striving meets with support from the government, from the press and also from the section which only Mr. Tikhomirov’s peculiar terminology can allow one not to recognise as “intelligentsia”. A fair number of our professors and scientists are already rallying to that banner. Nevertheless, the cause of Russian capitalism seems to Mr. Tikhomirov to be a very difficult "if not an altogether hopeless one”. In his opinion, "industry is developing sluggishly. It is always complaining of a shortage of intelligent and energetic forces”. That is true, of course, to a certain extent; but does this show "the hopelessness of Russian capitalism’s striving"? Is not the "sluggish development" of Russian industry determined by the influence of contemporary political oppression? Free institutions are a necessary condition for capitalism at a certain stage of its development—that has long been clear to everybody both in “Europe” and in Russia, where voices were raised as-early as the fifties demanding freedom for the sake of industrial success. It would be very useful for Mr. Tikhomirov to read the late I. Babst’s speech, "On Certain Conditions Promoting the Increase of the National Capital”, delivered in June 1856 at a great assembly of 212 Kazan University. It would help him to understand how the same capitalism which at first hides under the "cloak of an autocrat" gradually comes into contradiction with the interests of absolute monarchy and stands in opposition, in its own way of course, moderately and in an orderly fashion. "It is difficult to imagine how harmful bad administration, lack of security, arbitrary extortions, plundering and evil institutions are to economy and accumulation, and at the same time to the increase of the national capital,” says the economist I have just named. "Internecine wars, the struggle of the political parties, invasions, pestilence, and famine cannot have on the national wealth the destructive influence of despotic and arbitrary administration. What have the blessed countries of Asia Minor not suffered, what upheavals have they not experienced, and they have constantly been transformed again into an earth paradise until they were pinned down by Turkish administration. What happened to France in the eighteenth century, when the infamous system of taxation weighed down on the agricultural population and when, into the bargain, every official was able to plunder without fear and with impunity under cover of taxes? Thieves and robbers can be kept in check, but what can be done with bodies and officials of the supreme authority who consider their position as a lucrative trade? Here all energetic labour, all care for the future, for the improvement of one’s living, run low and ... capitals and their accumulation, gentlemen, fulfil their real purpose only when the road for their activity is fully and freely opened. " In vain does Mr. Tikhomirov refer to the circumstance that "the reign of Alexander II was a continual attempt by the monarchy to restore its stability by organising Russia on bourgeois principles" (?) as an argument to support the idea that Russian capitalism’s striving is hopeless. The history of the French absolute monarchy, beginning with Henry IV, was also almost "a continual attempt" to maintain the stability of the old state system by organising France "on bourgeois principles”. As early as at the assembly of the Etats Generaux in 1614 the nobility complained of this in the most unambiguous terms. We have already said what care Louis XIV’s minister applied to France’s industrial development. In the eighteenth century, on the eve of the revolution, there was set up a whole school of economists professing solidarity of interests between capitalism and the absolute monarchy, proclaiming the bourgeois principle "laissez faire, laissez passer" and at the same time quoting China as a model of a political system. The monarchy endeavoured according to its ability to adapt itself to the new conditions, as far as was possible without renouncing absolute power. At the opening of the Etats Generaux in 1789, 213 when it had one foot in the grave, the monarchy, with Louis XVI as its mouthpiece, condemning “illusions”, promised to satisfy all the “reasonable” demands of the country. But the implacable logic of things shows in a manner which is unexpected even to many members of the bourgeoisie that, although not everybody realised it, the fall of absolutism was the country’s most “reasonable” demand. The political ideals of the physio- crats ^^168^^ were an unrealisable Utopia, and many contemporaries of the physiocrats realised that absolutism was incompatible with the bourgeoisie’s further development. The socialist Mably, at least, and his Doutes proposes aux philosophes economistes , may be given as an example. In his time the bourgeoisie as a class had not yet thought of “seizing” supreme political power in the country, but, unlike Mr. Tikhomirov, he did not say that "if it were strong enough it would do so now”. He knew that there are epochs in history in which the strength and political consciousness of a given class rise just as rapidly as the level of the water in a river when the ice breaks. He also knew that the strength of each class is a relative concept, defined, among other things, by the degree of decay of its predecessors and the level achieved by the successor in its development. Given the low development of the people, the French bourgeoisie was the only class capable of exercising supremacy. Absolutism was a hindrance to France’s further development under the guidance of the bourgeoisie and was therefore doomed. The bourgeoisie revolted against the autocracy under whose “cloak” it had grown to “sedition”. Mably foresaw this outcome and, in spite of his communist ideals, he realised that the immediate future belonged to the bourgeoisie.

p If the significance and future prospects, not only of social classes, but even of the philosophical and political theories, could be denied on the grounds that they all develop for some time under the auspices of a principle which is incompatible with their further development, we would have to deny all human culture and “imagine” for it new and less "hazardous roads”. Did not philosophy grow within and at the expense of theology? "Unity, subordination and freedom are the three relationships to church theology in which the philosophy of the Christian period successively stood,” says Friedrich Uberweg in his history of philosophy  [213•* ; and this order of mutual relations between knowledge and faith may be recognised as a general law if we, on our side, add that “freedom” clears the road for itself only by the bitterest struggle for existence. Every new social or philosophical principle is born in the womb of—and 214 consequently on the nutritive juice of—the old which is its opposite.  To conclude from this that the fate of the new principle is “hopeless” means not to know history.

p Our exceptionalists, indeed, have a very poor knowledge of history. When they listen to the arguments of the Manchester School ^^169^^ on the harmfulness of state intervention, knowing at the same time that the Russian capitalists have a weakness for such intervention so long as it is manifested in protective tariffs, subsidies, guarantees, etc., the home-grown Russian sociologists conclude that the road of development for our capitalism is diametrically opposed to that of Western Europe; in the West the bourgeoisie speak only of “non-intervention”, here, only of subsidies and guarantees. But if Messrs. V. V. & Co. did not believe in the word of the Manchester School economists and would leave aside at least for a time their “exceptionalist” sources, they would find out that the West European bourgeoisie did not always or everywhere maintain the principle of non- intervention in their own country and still less did they support that principle in the colonies. Having found this out, they would see that their contrapositions have hardly any sense at all. We know that the radical mistake of the bourgeois economists of the Manchester School consisted precisely in elevating to the dignity of eternal immutable "natural laws" principles which have only a transient significance. Not sharing bourgeois economists’ “expectations” from the future, many Russian exceptionalists are nevertheless convinced that their views on the past are correct. They believe that in the history of the West the bourgeoisie never needed state intervention and government support and derived nothing but harm from it. That is the principal defect of our exceptionalist theories and programmes. Mr. V. V. believes what the Manchester School says, and thinks even a slight acquaintance with the economic history of Europe superfluous. Mr. Tikhomirov believes what Mr. V. V. says, and sees the increasing influence of the Russian bourgeoisie’s interests on the economic policy over the last twenty-five years “(the reign of Alexander II was a continual attempt”, etc.) as the principal sign of the weakness and still-bornness of Russian capitalism.

p Mr. V. V., a supporter of absolutism and for that reason if for no other a bitter reactionary, does not interest us in the least. But we confess that we are very much grieved by the credulity of the editor of a revolutionary paper.

p That the interests of the Russian bourgeoisie are now coming into irreconcilable contradiction to the interests of absolutism is known to anybody who has given the slightest attention to the 215 course of Russian life in the last decade.  [215•*  That the very same bourgeoisie is able, however, to derive profit from the existing regime and therefore not only supports some aspects of it, but stands for it as a whole, in some of its sections, is also no wonder. The development of a given social class is too complicated a process for us to be able to judge of the whole trend from some separate aspects. Our bourgeoisie is now undergoing an important metamorphosis; it has developed lungs which require the fresh air of political self-government but at the same time its gills, with which it still breathes in the troubled water of decaying absolutism, have not yet completely atrophied. Its roots are still in the soil of the old regime, but its crown has already attained a development which shows that it absolutely needs to be transplanted. The kulaks are continuing to get rich thanks to the predacious character of our state economy, but the big works owners and manufacturers, merchants and bourgeoisified agriculturists already understand that they must absolutely acquire political rights for their own welfare. This is proved to us by the petitions fairly frequently addressed to the government in the last ten years; in one of them the big industrialists and tradesmen even asked the government not to take any financial measures without consulting representatives of big capital. What is the tendency of such a petition? Does it not show that the destructive influence of absolutism is reflected in a palpable and noticeable manner in the incomes of the trading and industrial companies? Does it not show that the system by which each individual businessmen can influence ministers and ministries by all sorts of “petitions”, “patriotic” subscriptions and outright bribery is already becoming insufficient and ineffective and therefore tends to be replaced by organised and legal participation of the industrial class in the administration of the country? S. S. Polyakov can still be of the opinion that the ministers he has bribed are better than responsible, constitutional ministers.^^170^^ But His Excellency’s rivals, whom he defeated by presents and bribes, probably do not share his point of view. A political regime which is profitable to separate individuals , becomes unprofitable to the business class as a whole. Naturally, the representatives of that class do not come out into the streets, put up barricades or publish underground leaflets. Howe’ver, the bourgeoisie in general do not like such “hazardous”’ means. Only in very rare cases were they the first to raise the banner of revolt even in Western Europe: for the 216 greater part they merely undermined the hated system little by little and reaped fruits from the victory of the people who "fought against their enemies’ enemies”. As for secret political propaganda, what kind of a bourgeoisie would they have been had they not understood the significance of the division of labour? The bourgeoisie leave propaganda to the so-called intelligentsia and do not let themselves be distracted from the task of their own enrichment. They know that their cause is " certain" and that the political struggle begun by our intelligentsia will sooner or later clear the ground for their, the bourgeoisie’s domination. Did not the Italian bourgeoisie let the revolutionaries pick out of the fire the chestnuts of political emancipation and unification and are they not now feeding on those chestnuts?

p And what if the revolutionaries "seize power" and carry out a social revolution? The bourgeoisie do not believe in that, and soon, indeed, the revolutionaries themselves will cease to believe in it. Soon they will all understand that if people open their umbrellas when it is raining, that does not mean that rain can be caused by opening umbrellas; they will soon see that if the “seizure” of political power is the inevitable consequence of the development of the working class, just as of any other class, one must not conclude that it is enough for "revolutionaries from among the privileged sections" to seize power and the working population of Russia will be able to carry out a socialist upheaval. Soon all our socialists will understand that one can serve the interests of the people only by organising and preparing the people for independent struggle for those interests.

But nothing could be more profitable for the Russian bourgeoisie than the confidence some of our revolutionaries have in the bourgeoisie’s powerlessness. The bourgeoisie themselves are perhaps ready to join in their song. They even do so whenever the occasion offers. Just take the question of the number of our industrial workers. According to our author "out of 100 million inhabitants" in Russia "there are only 800,000 workers united by .capital”; and besides this relatively negligent number of workers "in our country ... is not growing, but perhaps is even" (! ) "remaining at the same figure”. Noting that it "is not growing " and therefore exactly "is remaining at the same figure” , let us trace the genesis of this conviction.